How far from correct is the use of adrenaline auto-injectors? A survey in Italian patients

Pediatri Asistanlarının Anafilaksi Yönetimi ve Adrenalin Otoenjektör Uygulama Becerileri Konusundaki Bilgi Düzeyleri: Eğitim Öncesi ve Eğitim Sonrası Değerlendirme

Aim: The study aimed to evaluate the knowledge levels of pediatric residents about the treatment of anaphylaxis and the correct application skill of adrenaline auto-injector (AAI) and to determine the contribution of short-term training to this level. Material and Method: A questionnaire form was distributed to evaluate the basic information about the anaphylaxis treatment. And, all participants were asked to demonstrate the use of AAI using demo devices and mannequins. This assessment was considered a ‘Pre-Test’. At the end of the training, the steps of AAI use were re-evaluated. The data coming from this re-evaluation were recorded as ‘Post-Test’. Results: A total of 110 pediatric residents were included in our study. Most of the participants (94.6%) correctly knew that the first drug to be administered in the treatment of anaphylaxis was adrenaline. And also, 99.4% of the participants knew that adrenaline treatment should be administered intramuscularly. When asked where to apply adrenaline, 94.6 of the participants gave the correct answer. When the AAI application technique is evaluated with the pretest; It was observed that frequent mistakes were made in some steps. With the Post-Test applied after the training almost all the participants were able to complete the steps flawlessly Conclusion: It is important to increase the knowledge level, identify faulty steps, if any, and repeat the training of physicians who are obliged to supervise the AAI application technique of patients during outpatient follow-ups.

Lipid transfer protein syndrome: How to save a life through careful education

Introduction

Lipid transfer proteins (nsLTPs) are ubiquitous allergens. Patients affected by nsLTP syndrome experience symptoms to various plant-derived foods, ranging from local manifestations to anaphylaxis, the critical treatment of which is represented by self-administration of adrenaline. The principle aim of this study is to assess how dietary recommendations influence the occurrence of new and severe cases and if poly-sensitization to different nsLTPs may play a role. We also investigated about the appropriate use of adrenaline auto-injector during the episodes of anaphylaxis. Moreover, we examinated how other features (ie, co-sensitization to profilin and PR-10 and the presence of risk co-factors) affect these events.

Materials and methods

We evaluated 78 patients allergic to nsLTPs, investigating adherence to diet and ability to use the adrenaline auto-injector. Number of sensitization to nsLTPs, co-sensitization to other panallergens, and presence of risk factors for new reactions were also assessed. Diagnosis was based on clinical history and positivity to in vivo and in vitro tests. During the follow-up, compliance, diet modifications, and new reactions were noted, and re-training for the use of epinephrine auto-injector was performed. At the last visit we evaluated the patients’ ability to use the self-injector.

Results

The whole of fruits belonging to the Rosaceae family emerged as the most frequent culprit foods (28%), followed by walnut (17%), peanut (17%), and hazelnut (10%). At the baseline visit 23% of the patients described the presence of a risk factor during the allergic reaction (mainly nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs] and exercise). Forty-five percent of the patients reported anaphylactic reactions; no association between the type of food and the severity of the reactions was found. The presence of sensitization to 4 or more nsLTPs was associated to more severe reactions (p < .05; OR 1.67). During the follow-up 38% of the patients experienced at least 1 new allergic reaction: in 79% of them the culprit food was previously tolerated, and in 69% the reaction was an anaphylaxis. Only 47% of the patients showed a proper use of adrenaline auto-injector during the final evaluation, but a significant correlation between periodic education and reduction of the probability of mistakes in the use was reported (p < .05; OR 0.34). Furthermore, an association between co-sensitization to PR-10 (in particular Bet v1) and profilin and less severe symptoms was found, but without a significant odds ratio.

Conclusion

A careful education aimed to the prevention of new reactions, through dietary restrictions and avoidance of risk co-factors, and to the management of anaphylaxis, through the training for the correct use of adrenaline auto-injector, should be a routine practice in nsLTP syndrome.

Improving epinephrine autoinjector usability and carriage frequency among patients at risk of anaphylaxis: a quality improvement initiative

Although epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs) are crucial for the management of anaphylaxis, patient carriage frequency of EAI is as low as 57% and usage of EAIs is erroneous 35%–43% of the time. Our objective was to improve patient carrying frequency of EAI and understanding of EAI usage.

We implemented a quality improvement initiative using consistent closed-loop education, redesigned clinic workflow, electronic medical record reminder-based interventions, and educational materials to improve patient EAI carriage compliance and understanding of EAI indications and proper technique.

The percentage of our patients who carried the EAI at all times increased from 55% to 93% in 6 months. Participants knowledge of EAI indications also improved from 22% to 91%. Patient demonstration scores of the EAI device improved from 21% to 91% as well.

Our quality improvement interventions demonstrated a significant improvement>80% in EAI carriage frequency, knowledge of indications, and proper device technique.

Community Use of Epinephrine for the Treatment of Anaphylaxis: A Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Community use of epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis is low. Knowledge of rates of epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting along with identification of barriers to its use will contribute to the development of policies and guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

A search was conducted on PubMed and Embase in April 2020. Our systematic review focused on 4 domains: (1) epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting; (2) barriers to epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting; (3) cost evaluation and cost-effectiveness of epinephrine use; and (4) programs and strategies to improve epinephrine use during anaphylaxis.

METHODS

Two meta-analyses with logit transformation were conducted to: (1) calculate the pooled estimate of the rate of epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting among cases of anaphylaxis and (2) calculate the pooled estimate of the rate of biphasic reactions among all cases of anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

Epinephrine use in the pre-hospital setting was significantly higher for children compared with adults (20.98% [95% confidence interval (CI): 16.38%, 26.46%] vs 7.17% [95% CI: 2.71%, 17.63%], respectively, P = .0027). The pooled estimate of biphasic reactions among all anaphylaxis cases was 3.92% (95% CI: 2.88%, 5.32%). Our main findings indicate that pre-hospital use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. Major barriers to the use of epinephrine were identified as low prescription rates of epinephrine autoinjectors and lack of stock epinephrine in schools, which was determined to be cost-effective. Finally, in reviewing programs and strategies, numerous studies have engineered effective methods to promote adequate and timely use of epinephrine.

CONCLUSION

The main findings of our study demonstrated that across the globe, prompt epinephrine use in cases of anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. For practical recommendations, we would suggest considering stock epinephrine in schools and food courts to increase the use of epinephrine in the community. We recommend use of pamphlets in public areas (ie, malls, food courts, etc.) to assist in recognizing anaphylaxis and after that with prompt epinephrine administration, to avoid the rare risk of fatality in anaphylaxis cases.

The Ability to Use Epinephrine Autoinjector in Patients Who Receive Prescription Immediately after Anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) is prescribed to prevent a fatal outcome in the case of a repeated anaphylactic reactions. We wanted to determine how adult patients who received their first prescription as part of an urgent treatment of an anaphylactic reaction or at their family physician were instructed on the use of EAI.

METHODS

Nurses assessing patients' knowledge asked the patient to demonstrate how to use the EAI training device. Patients who performed the critical steps correctly in 1 min were labelled as competent.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients (24% women, 46 ± 5 years) came for the allergy examination 116 ± 145 days after receiving a prescription for EAI. When prescribing, the doctor or nurse explained the instructions for the use of EAI to 63.4% patients, and 31.7 patients practiced the use of EAI using a training device. At the pharmacy, 22% received explanation and 7% also practiced using a training device. Fifty-four percent of patients were able to effectively administer EAI adrenaline within 1 min. Higher education level was associated with sufficient knowledge about the use of EAI (p = 0.026). At the time of the visit to the allergy specialist clinic, 61% of patients had EAI with them. The shelf life of EAI was known to 63% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The activities to increase the prescription rate of EAI immediately after treatment of anaphylactic episode are not sufficient to prevent severe outcome after the repeated episodes of anaphylaxis as nearly a half of patients are not able to use EAI correctly.

Self-injectable epinephrine: doctors' attitude and patients' adherence in real-life

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epinephrine is the only life-saving treatment of anaphylaxis. Prescription and administration rates of self-injectable epinephrine are generally low. It is unclear whether this is because of availability, low prescription rates, fear of using epinephrine, or a combination of these issues.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review focuses on what self-injectable epinephrine devices (SIED), such as auto-injectors and prefilled syringes, are preferred by patients and healthcare professionals (HCP). Our findings suggest that a device's ease to use, proper and frequent training on its operability, and availability have an impact on preferences and adherence to treatment with SIEDs. After prescribing a patient with a SIED, clinicians should emphasize its use in anaphylaxis, educate patients/caregivers to identify anaphylaxis and on how to use the SIED, and encourage constant practicing with training devices.

SUMMARY

Epinephrine is the sole recommended anaphylaxis treatment and SIEDs are of critical usefulness in the community setting. Further studying of these devices is needed to optimize education for HCPs and patients and their accessibility to SIEDs.

Intranasal epinephrine effects on epinephrine pharmacokinetics and heart rate in a nasal congestion canine model

BACKGROUND

Histamine release and vasodilation during an allergic reaction can alter the pharmacokinetics of drugs administered via the intranasal (IN) route. The current study evaluated the effects of histamine-induced nasal congestion on epinephrine pharmacokinetics and heart rate changes after IN epinephrine.

METHODS

Dogs received 5% histamine or saline IN followed by 4 mg epinephrine IN. Nasal restriction pressure, epinephrine concentration, and heart rate were assessed. Maximum concentration (Cmax), area under plasma concentration-time curve from 1 to 90 min (AUC1-90), and time to reach Cmax (Tmax) were measured. Clinical observations were documented.

RESULTS

In the 12 dogs in this study, nasal congestion occurred at 5-10 min after IN histamine administration versus no nasal congestion after IN saline. After administration of IN epinephrine, IN histamine-mediated nasal congestion was significantly reduced to baseline levels at 60, 80, and 100 min. There were no significant differences in Cmax and AUC1-90 between histamine and saline groups after IN epinephrine delivery (3.5 vs 1.7 ng/mL, p = 0.06, and 117 vs 59 ng/mL*minutes, p = 0.09, respectively). After receiving IN epinephrine, the histamine group had a significantly lower Tmax versus the saline group (6 vs 70 min, respectively; p = 0.02). Following IN epinephrine administration, the histamine group showed rapidly increased heart rate at 5 min, while there was a delayed increase in heart rate (occurring 30-60 min after administration) in the saline group. Clinical observations included salivation and emesis.

CONCLUSION

IN histamine led to more rapid epinephrine absorption and immediately increased heart rate compared with IN saline. IN epinephrine decreased histamine-induced nasal congestion.

Improving adrenaline autoinjector adherence: A psychologically informed training for healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Clinicians draw on instructional approaches when training patients with anaphylaxis to use adrenaline autoinjectors, but patient use is poor. Psychological barriers to these behaviours exist but are not considered routinely when training patients to use autoinjectors. Health Psychology principles suggest exploring these factors with patients could improve their autoinjector use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a 90-minute workshop training clinicians in strategies and techniques for exploring and responding to psychological barriers to autoinjector use with patients. Attendees' knowledge, confidence and likelihood of using the strategies were expected to improve.

METHODS

Impact was evaluated using a longitudinal mixed-method design. Twenty-nine clinicians (general and specialist nurses, general practitioners, and pharmacists) supporting patients with anaphylaxis in UK hospitals and general practice attended. Self-rated knowledge, confidence, and likelihood of using the strategies taught were evaluated online 1 week before, 1 to 3, and 6 to 8 weeks after the workshop. Clinicians were invited for telephone interview after attending to explore qualitatively the workshop impact.

RESULTS

χ2 analyses were significant in most cases (P < .05), with sustained (6-8 weeks) improvements in knowledge, confidence, and likelihood of using the strategies taught. Thematic analysis of interview data showed the workshop enhanced attendees' knowledge of the care pathway, understanding of patient's experience of anaphylaxis as psychological not purely physical, and altered their communication with this and other patient groups. However, interviewees perceived lack of time and organisational factors as barriers to using the strategies and techniques taught in clinical contexts.

CONCLUSION

Training clinicians in psychologically informed strategies produce sustained improvements in their confidence and knowledge around patient autoinjector education, and their likelihood of using strategies in clinical practice.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Exploring psychological barriers should be part of training patients with anaphylaxis in autoinjector use.

Underuse of epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis: missed opportunities

Epinephrine is the only effective treatment for anaphylaxis but studies routinely show underutilization. This is especially troubling given the fact that fatal anaphylaxis has been associated with delayed administration of epinephrine. Many potential barriers exist to the proper use of epinephrine during an anaphylactic reaction. This article will explore both patient-and physician-related factors, as well as misconceptions that all contribute to the underuse of epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis.

Epinephrine Autoinjectors: New Data, New Problems

Epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. Despite this, there have been identified gaps in the management of anaphylaxis including infrequent or delayed use of epinephrine for acute allergic reactions, as well as inadequate epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) training, and prescription rates of these devices for patients at risk. This paper reviews new data, and new problems in recently published literature on EAIs. A database search was conducted for publications between January 2015 and February 2017 using keywords related to EAIs including their functionality and features, carriage, prescription rates, barriers, and side effects. Eligibility criteria included patients at risk for anaphylaxis, caregivers, and health care professionals. Experimental studies and observational studies were included. Of 1,737 potentially relevant articles, 19 were used for analysis. These articles addressed specific aspects of an EAI, including (1) information on features and functionality; (2) prescriptions; (3) training on their use; and (4) carriage and use at the time of reaction by patients, schools, camps, emergency departments, and paramedics. Our review highlights that existing gaps in anaphylaxis management remain unaddressed. Patient needs are largely unmet, and very few studies are being designed to clarify and instill best practice, and to determine how to increase adherence to existing anaphylaxis guidelines through integrated knowledge translation strategies.

Hymenoptera sting reactions in southern Italy forestry workers: our experience compared to reported data

Background

Hymenoptera sting reactions are among life-threatening causes of allergy. Several epidemiology studies have assessed the risk of these kind of reactions, among the general population, around 3% of adults. This incidence increases among highly at risk populations such as outdoor workers. Hymenoptera stings among forestry workers (FW) are occupational triggers but it has not yet been well defined which is the real incidence of anaphylaxis in these workers, not even in Italy. Two Italian studies reported on the risk of hymenoptera stings (HS) in northern Italy (NI) and central Italy (CI) FW while no data is available on the prevalence in southern Italy (SI) ones.

Methods

A population of 341 SI FW (301 males and 40 females, mean age 51 years, range 43-63 years), who worked in Sicily, was investigated submitting a standardized questionnaire dealing with reactions to Hymenoptera stings, such as large local reactions (LLR) and systemic reactions (SR).

Results

HS occurred in 203 FW (59%) and caused reactions in 77 (22%); LLR occurred in 46 (13%) and SR in 31 (9%); SR were life threatening in 9/341 (3%) FW and were treated with epinephrine at the emergency unit as workers did not carry an epinephrine auto-injector. A SR at a subsequent HS followed a LLR in 21/46 FW (46%).

Conclusions

FW in SI have a generic risk of HS anaphylaxis as in the general population but a higher risk of SR and LLR respect to forestry populations from different Italian geographical areas.SR among SI FW occurred in 9% of them, while published data report the incidence of SR around 2 and 4%, respectively, in the Centre and North Italy FW. The incidence of LLR in SI FW was also higher (13%) than in CI (2%) and NI (10%) ones. Previous LLR in our SI population represented a high risk factor for developing a SR and therefore a red flag for future anaphylaxis and prescription of an epinephrine auto-injector.

New trends in anaphylaxis

This review presents the current trends in anaphylaxis management discussed at the fourth International Network for Online-Registration of Anaphylaxis (NORA) conference held in Berlin in April 2017. Current data from the anaphylaxis registry show that Hymenoptera venom, foods, and pharmaceutical drugs are still among the most frequent triggers of anaphylaxis. Rare triggers include chicory, cardamom, asparagus, and goji berries. A meta-analysis on recent trends in insect venom anaphylaxis demonstrated for the first time that, although data on the efficacy of insect venom immunotherapy is limited, the occurrence of severe reactions upon repeated sting events can be prevented and patients’ quality of life improved. Molecular diagnostics of insect venom anaphylaxis have significantly improved diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. Self-treatment of anaphylaxis is of great importance. Recent data from the anaphylaxis registry show an increase (from 23% in 2012 to 29% in 2016) in the use of adrenaline as recommended in the guidelines. A survey on the implementation of guidelines conducted among the centers reporting to the anaphylaxis registry highlights the extent to which the guideline has been perceived and implemented. Reports on a variety of cases in the anaphylaxis registry illustrate the diversity of this potentially life-threatening reaction. Component-resolved diagnostics can help to specify sensitization profiles in anaphylaxis, particularly in terms of the risk for severe reactions. Recent studies on anaphylaxis awareness show that training methods are effective; nevertheless, target groups and learning methods need to undergo further scientific investigation in coming years.

Hymenoptera Allergy and Mast Cell Activation Syndromes

Mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS) can be diagnosed in patients with recurrent, severe symptoms from mast cell (MC)-derived mediators, which are transiently increased in serum and are attenuated by mediator-targeting drugs. When KIT-mutated, clonal MC are detected in these patients, a diagnosis of primary MCAS can be made. Severe systemic reactions to hymenoptera venom (HV) represent the most common form of anaphylaxis in patients with mastocytosis. Patients with primary MCAS and HV anaphylaxis are predominantly males and do not have skin lesions in the majority of cases, and anaphylaxis is characterized by hypotension and syncope in the absence of urticaria and angioedema. A normal value of tryptase (≤11.4 ng/ml) in these patients does not exclude a diagnosis of mastocytosis. Patients with primary MCAS and HV anaphylaxis have to undergo lifelong venom immunotherapy, in order to prevent further potentially fatal severe reactions.